Monday 29 November 2010

Should we give one to one advice to charities?

This is an open question for discussion - which of the following views do you tend to agree with more, and why?

a) The Commission should be a key ‘enabler’ through the regulatory advice it provides to individual charities

OR

b) The Commission should put its guidance on the website and not give any advice on a one-to-one basis to individual charities

10 comments:

  1. Ceasing to provide advice on complex matters on a one-to-one basis will simply shift the cost of compliance from government to charities, who will have to take legal or specialist advice or simply make potentially costly guesses. This ultimately results in less charitable activity and more spending on charity governance, which is not to the wider public benefit. If the delivery of public benefit through the charitable status is the test, as opposed to simply reducing headline government expenditure, the answer is clear.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not a well thought out question. Given that you give an either/or - my view will have to be that advice should NOT be one to one. How could this be cost effective for tax payers (through the Charity Commission),when it seems to be facing massive cuts (ie the loss of a third of its already small work force) and the sector is growing? In reality, trustees should pay for specialist advice (may be the Commission should charge for it?). It would be to the public benefit, as the public would see it as proper legit expenditure. On-line advice and guidance is the way to go (especially in tough ecconomic circumstances). If your budget is slashed, then this is the only sensible solution. The on-line guidance is very helpful and in reality, many other organisations offer only this sort of thing. If the financial situation improves, then one to one advice would be great, but this would be a luxury. The Commission should spend its money on regulation - and investigating scams and failing charities.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This mustn't be either/or but both! On-line support and advice 'can' reduce the amount of one-to-one support if it is delivered well. It will need investment in intelligent systems that enable users, whose enquiries may be framed badly, to drill down to the appropriate advice. Usual search facilities and directories inevitably become unwieldy and frustrating. The more intuitive and 'intelligent' the on-line advice the less human input will be required. However there are always bound to be problems that are outside the scope of these systems. There may well be users who would be disenfranchised either through lack of IT skills, access to technology or through disability who will not be able to use even the very best on-line systems.

    ReplyDelete
  4. b) It cannot afford to give one to one advice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Prevention is better than cure. I read many comments about the need for "compliance" but this also encompasses the need to ensure that a charity has (and understands) a basic governance model I favour B as there is no way the vagaries of charity law can be wholly intuitively catered for on a website.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Neither - it should leave charities to run themselves, and give advice only when asked.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It concerns me that charities might not be able to get one to one advice but I understand cuts must be made somewhere. I would suggest advice available to smaller charities, say under the Independent Examination threshold. Larger charities are in general more able to pay the cost of professional legal advice, in my experience smaller charities are much more inclined to copy the advice others have used or seek cheaper alternatives to proper consideration of their specific situation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Should we give one to one advice to charities?

    The advice is not up to standard imho.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Abbeyfield SocietyThursday, January 13, 2011

    Option A and B
    Whilst the Commission should provide general guidance through its website and thus seek to provide resources to answer most questions that way it should not completely withdraw from the provision of 1-1 advice. This should be designed in such a way as this advice is accessed only when other options have not helped.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There will be so many fee charging organisations simply falling over themselves and rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of being able to pick up this mantel.

    Not all questions can be answered via a website and while paying fees for advice may be ok for larger charities, smaller charities dont have that kind of money to throw away. Public opinion is for charities to spend their funds on their objects and less on administration and professional input. So doesnt the prospect of them being made to pay for some advice go against that principle?

    ReplyDelete